Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ABDUL RASHID versus CROWN


Federal Court Rules 1950 Federal Court Rules, 1950, OX, r 3 Accidental slip can be corrected

P. L. D. 1951 F. C. 14

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Before Abdul Rashid, C. J., Abdur Rahman, and A. S. M. Akram, JJ.

ABDUL RASHID--‑Appellant‑Petitioner

versus

CROWN‑Respondent

(From Lahore)

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 20 of 1950.

Federal Court Rules, 1950, O. X, r. 3‑Accidental slip may be corrected.

(This order may be read as supplement to judgment reported as P. L. D. 1951 F. C. 2‑Ed.)

ORDER

ABDUL RASHID.‑--

By our order dated the 16th October, 1950, we dismissed the petition of Abdul Rashid for special leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the High Court of judicature at Lahore. In the recital of the facts given in the beginning of our order two inaccuracies have accidentally crept in. They are as follows :‑

(i) "The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge. This point was not taken in that appeal".

(ii) The words "in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction" in the next sentence.

The inaccuracies pointed out above occur in the recital of the facts given in the beginning of the order. They have no connec tion with the operative part of the order.

Rule (3) of order 10 of the rules of this Court runs in the following terms :‑---

"A judgment pronounced by the Court or by a majority of the Court or by a dissenting judge in open Court shall not after wards be altered or added to, save for the purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from any accidental slip or omission'".

The two errors pointed out above are due to an accidental slip and fall within the purview of this rule. Mr. Mohsin Shah, who was asked to address us in respect of the inaccuracies, contended that these inaccuracies did not amount merely to an accidental slip or omission. We consider there is no force in this contention. We, accordingly, order that the following portions shall be omitted from our judgment.

(i) "The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge. This point was not taken in that appeal".

(ii) The words "in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction" at the conclusion of the next sentence.

A.H Portions Omitted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
jobs for fresh advocates from Panjan Kisan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.